Golf Memberships

PARlance

In the above instance, an opportunity may arise for a group of members to form a new club and buy it. Paying a little more than the agricultural value to secure it.

I think Russman mentioned this earlier and I can see it happening a bit. The bank would take a hair cut, the new members take a big risk in purchasing it and trying to make it profitable.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

I think your basing the assumption on a healthy club.
If a club is making loses, and I'm sure there are loads out there losing money at present, then the ability to repay a loan can fail.

Increasing the term may work but dependant on how unhealthy the club is financially then it still may not be able to make the repayments of an extended loan.

A golf club that is forced to be sold under these circumstances will more than likely not find a buyer willing to buy it as a golf course. Why invest in something that has a proven ability to lose money.
It would be more likely to be valued and sold as agricultural land (less a discount for having to leave it fallow for numerous years).
I wouldn't fancy the changes of a course being rezoned into residential land as mentioned earlier.

So if there's a big loan and the course is sold for pittance. There's not much hope for members of getting anything back tbh.

With the construction market on the rebound, land for building purposes comes into it as well. But there are so many variables - location, who owns what, who owes what etc. There will be more churn, but what form it takes will depend on individual circumstances.

When a club hits trouble for whatever reason, the members's first instinct is usually to keep it going as a club, even if that means moving. Kiltiernan tried it with the move to Powerscourt but eventually gave up and merged into what was then South County. When the company behind South County got into trouble, the members looked at moving as a club and got offers from Roundwood among others. When the owners of Ballinascorney terminated the deal, the club stayed alive by moving to Oldfield. When the same owners decided to close Dublin City as a golf course the club thought about re-locating. Forrest Little and St Margarets went a bit down the road and I remember there was talk of Clontarf moving to Portmarnock Links before landownership issues put an end to it. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Personally I think the priority should be to have sustainable operations, with golfers who "get it" coalescing in a smaller number of locations. Nostalgia and club allegiance are understandable but may be a luxury at this stage, in some cases anyway.

Wichita Lineman

Forgive me if I am wrong but are the main contributors involved with playing in Dublin and it's immediate area? If so they have a huge amount of choice compared to those of us struggling to keep small countryside clubs afloat by being loyal.

There is more involved here than saving €50 a year by becoming a floating member and wandering from place to place. As far as I am concerned there are golf facilities and there are golf clubs and I know I'd prefer to be involved with a golf club.

golfwallah

First Up wrote: »

With the construction market on the rebound, land for building purposes comes into it as well. But there are so many variables - location, who owns what, who owes what etc. There will be more churn, but what form it takes will depend on individual circumstances.

When a club hits trouble for whatever reason, the members's first instinct is usually to keep it going as a club, even if that means moving. Kiltiernan tried it with the move to Powerscourt but eventually gave up and merged into what was then South County. When the company behind South County got into trouble, the members looked at moving as a club and got offers from Roundwood among others. When the owners of Ballinascorney terminated the deal, the club stayed alive by moving to Oldfield. When the same owners decided to close Dublin City as a golf course the club thought about re-locating. Forrest Little and St Margarets went a bit down the road and I remember there was talk of Clontarf moving to Portmarnock Links before landownership issues put an end to it. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Personally I think the priority should be to have sustainable operations, with golfers who "get it" coalescing in a smaller number of locations. Nostalgia and club allegiance are understandable but may be a luxury at this stage, in some cases anyway.

Good info., but from what I can see there are very few, if any, clubs that "get it" of their own accord about moves or mergers. It's usually some outside agency that prompts them to consider their options and "get it" - such as a property developer offering to buy their land, an exchange deal, or forces them to do it, such as bank, receiver, etc.

Voluntary closures or mergers are rare but may start to come about when clubs eventually realise the game is up. In the final analysis directors of clubs that are limited companies and trustees of those that are trusteeships can be held personally liable if they knowingly continue to trade whilst insolvent. The courts seem to be getting tougher on directors of voluntary bodies in this area, so it will be interesting to watch what happens over the forthcoming months and years.

One poster mentioned the possibility of a club selling the land and distributing any surplus among members. May be possible in some instances, every club is different, but some have covenants (as part of getting tax free exemption as a Charitable Body) that require their assets to be re-used for community benefit in the event of a wind up and sale. There are also tax implications for those who are in a position to sell for the benefit of members.

As regards sale as agricultural land, yes, the land would have to be left fallow, but hills, lakes and hollows would also have to be flattened, at some cost, in a way that didn't spread infertile subsoil all over the place.

First Up

golfwallah wrote: »

Good info., but from what I can see there are very few, if any, clubs that "get it" of their own accord about moves or mergers. It's usually some outside agency that prompts them to consider their options and "get it" - such as a property developer offering to buy their land, an exchange deal, or forces them to do it, such as bank, receiver, etc.

Voluntary closures or mergers are rare but may start to come about when clubs eventually realise the game is up. In the final analysis directors of clubs that are limited companies and trustees of those that are trusteeships can be held personally liable if they knowingly continue to trade whilst insolvent. The courts seem to be getting tougher on directors of voluntary bodies in this area, so it will be interesting to watch what happens over the forthcoming months and years.

One poster mentioned the possibility of a club selling the land and distributing any surplus among members. May be possible in some instances, every club is different, but some have covenants (as part of getting tax free exemption as a Charitable Body) that require their assets to be re-used for community benefit in the event of a wind up and sale. There are also tax implications for those who are in a position to sell for the benefit of members.

As regards sale as agricultural land, yes, the land would have to be left fallow, but hills, lakes and hollows would also have to be flattened, at some cost, in a way that didn't spread infertile subsoil all over the place.

My reference to "getting it" was about golfers who understand that golf had to be paid for and that the more they put into their club, the better it will be. It is the polar opposite attitude of distance members looking to get a much as possible for as little a possible.
Dun Laoghaire was a case of a club selling its land. They got a very fancy new course and cash in the bank but I understand there are tax implications for how it can be used or divvied up.

golfwallah

Wichita Lineman wrote: »

Forgive me if I am wrong but are the main contributors involved with playing in Dublin and it's immediate area? If so they have a huge amount of choice compared to those of us struggling to keep small countryside clubs afloat by being loyal.

There is more involved here than saving €50 a year by becoming a floating member and wandering from place to place. As far as I am concerned there are golf facilities and there are golf clubs and I know I'd prefer to be involved with a golf club.

What you are saying is spot on and covers lots of people in your particular situation.

But the reality is that clubs are losing members and many people are giving up the game altogether. For some of these people, who would like to keep playing, but have only limited time and/or money for golf there are insufficient playing options to keep them in the game. Not all potential golfers can afford the price of full or even 5 day membership.

For instance, I know of one 35 year old club member, who could only manage to play 17 time in the last 2 years. That works out at €129 a round plus €5 competition fee. Buying a new house this year will drive people like him and many others with only limited time / money availability out of the game. And playing for green fees without handicap / competition is not what these people want - nor is the distance option. They want to play as members in their own club or another local club nearby.

And in many cases these people are our own sons or daughters!

Research on the England Golf site puts latent demand (people who want to play but can't overcome these types of economic barriers) at 1.55% of the population. If applied to Ireland that would put latent demand for the island of Ireland at 96,000 people.

There must be more ways of making golf more widely available than insisting that those who play 120 time or more a year have to pay the same price as someone who can only manage 20 or less times a year! And, again, examples of how this can be done with "alternative membership categories" is available on the England Golf site.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

For instance, I know of one 35 year old club member, who could only manage to play 17 time in the last 2 years. That works out at €129 a round plus €5 competition fee. Buying a new house this year will drive people like him and many others with only limited time / money availability out of the game. And playing for green fees without handicap / competition is not what these people want - nor is the distance option. They want to play as members in their own club or another local club nearby.

You see I dont think you can look at golf that way as a member.
If you are only playing 17 times in two years then perhaps competition golf is not for you? Why wouldnt you just play greenfees and public/pay as you go courses?

It seems like these people want to be able to play competition/GUI golf without having to pay the costs this involves.
To that I say, dont we all!

golfwallah wrote: »

Research on the England Golf site puts latent demand (people who want to play but can't overcome these types of economic barriers) at 1.55% of the population. If applied to Ireland that would put latent demand for the island of Ireland at 96,000 people.

There must be more ways of making golf more widely available than insisting that those who play 120 time or more a year have to pay the same price as someone who can only manage 20 or less times a year! And, again, examples of how this can be done with "alternative membership categories" is available on the England Golf site.

Why do they need to be members anywhere? Whats wrong with greenfees and pay as you go courses?
As a member you are paying for the option/ability to play whenever you want. If you cant do this due to your own circumstances then I cant see how thats the clubs fault for not making a special niche just for you?

If I want to swim I pay my €8 at the local pool, I dont complain to the local swim club that their €250 membership is too expensive considering I only swim twice a year.
IF they swim club did want to offer a heavily discounted membership, its not going to be at the peak times, it will be when the place is largely empty anyway and so its not impacting its full members. This will suit some people (the shift workers from earlier for example) but not the majority.

Why do people think that golf is any different?

GreeBo

Wichita Lineman wrote: »

Forgive me if I am wrong but are the main contributors involved with playing in Dublin and it's immediate area? If so they have a huge amount of choice compared to those of us struggling to keep small countryside clubs afloat by being loyal.

There is more involved here than saving €50 a year by becoming a floating member and wandering from place to place. As far as I am concerned there are golf facilities and there are golf clubs and I know I'd prefer to be involved with a golf club.

Going down with the ship may be loyal, but if there are two courses nearby and neither have the golfing population to support them anymore, the choice seems obvious.
It may not be palatable to all, but waiting until the bank moves in and both courses are gone doesn't sound like a plan either.

I think those of us arguing against the distance membership exploitation are firmly in the golf club category.

First Up

golfwallah wrote: »

What you are saying is spot on and covers lots of people in your particular situation.

But the reality is that clubs are losing members and many people are giving up the game altogether. For some of these people, who would like to keep playing, but have only limited time and/or money for golf there are insufficient playing options to keep them in the game. Not all potential golfers can afford the price of full or even 5 day membership.

For instance, I know of one 35 year old club member, who could only manage to play 17 time in the last 2 years. That works out at €129 a round plus €5 competition fee. Buying a new house this year will drive people like him and many others with only limited time / money availability out of the game. And playing for green fees without handicap / competition is not what these people want - nor is the distance option. They want to play as members in their own club or another local club nearby.

And in many cases these people are our own sons or daughters!

Research on the England Golf site puts latent demand (people who want to play but can't overcome these types of economic barriers) at 1.55% of the population. If applied to Ireland that would put latent demand for the island of Ireland at 96,000 people.

There must be more ways of making golf more widely available than insisting that those who play 120 time or more a year have to pay the same price as someone who can only manage 20 or less times a year! And, again, examples of how this can be done with "alternative membership categories" is available on the England Golf site.

Sorry, but if someone has unrealistic expectations, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to fulfill them.

If someone wants to play the odd game, they can do so on just about any course in the country. If they want to play competitive golf, then they join a club for a price they can justify the cost to themselves. If they can't find one that suits, then maybe they should park their desire for competitive golf until such time as they can.

golfwallah

• We have a rapidly segmenting and shrinking golf market, where various people have different wants and needs. Yet most golf clubs are still offering the same old full / 5 day membership types that meet the needs of only some of their existing and potential new members. No wonder so many are struggling.
• To be successful, all businesses (including golf clubs) need to put the customer at the centre of their operations. We not all approaching or in the “empty nester” situation - older guys and gals with low or zero mortgages, high disposable incomes and living in the leafy suburbs of Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc. Yes, this type of person represents a valued part of the market – but it is only a small part. We all know of a lot more people, whose personal, family, economic and time situations fit into totally different market segments.
• On a positive note, the Genie is now out of bottle. There is growing awareness of the market & choices available thanks to ongoing work by Golfing Unions Ireland, England, Scotland, Sweden, etc. Word is getting out to club officials and gradually filtering down to members but it is a slow process.
• See attached from England Golf site for further information as to the choices available.
• Basically there are 2 camps, representing affordable choice of membership categories for larger numbers on the one hand or expensive limited choice membership for the few, on the other.
• The image of secure golf clubs in well off leafy suburbs with status quo of waiting lists, high fees and little choice is still there. It works for the few. But this model has failed the majority of clubs, leaving a competitive scramble for survival.
• The same intractable views are represented in club AGMs. To get your views across, people need to speak up, as these issues are best decided by members through debate and informed choice between alternatives of limited membership options (full / 5 day) or alternative membership categories targeted to meet different customer needs. I’ve spoken at our AGMs, things have changed for the better and, guess what, it’s working!
• I’m a great believer in democracy whatever its faults. There will always be loud resisters of change, but don’t be afraid to let your voice be heard. Talk or write to your committee, speak at meetings and let the majority in the golfing community decide.

Letree

If golf is trying to tap into this 96,000 people who would like to play the odd round competitively but can't justify full membership. Maybe they could be charged €30 or €40 a time to enter opens or play competitively as non members at their local course (but with an actual handicap). Members pay €5 to enter these competitions in their own club. Then in terms of playing opens. Actual members of golf clubs could be asked to prove their membership of a club and get to play opens in other clubs for €15 or €20 a time.

callaway92

In the last 3 years prices for 3rd level students (up to 23 years old, lol) has gone up by €75 up from €125 to €200 now.

Don't know and don't particularly care about the prices for other courses but to increase by 60% is very unfair. I suppose I look at it one way where they look at it another way. The number of student members (I think) are well down and they are now trying to cut the loss by increasing price for who is willing to pay the new price.

I think it 100% should be the other way around, keeping the price down for students. Talking about it with two friends yesterday (17 & 20) and both said they genuinely can't afford it now, so usually just play in the evenings when the professional shop is closed (something which I've done in the past too).

Are people in charge of clubs so thick to not do a rolling monthly membership/3 month membership/other variations?

SaveOurLyric

callaway92 wrote: »

Are people in charge of clubs so thick to not do a rolling monthly membership/3 month membership/other variations?

They are smart enough not to do those types of options.

Same as the distance member issue, there seems to be a bizarre sense of entitlement abroad that people should be able to play for whatever they can (or choose to decide they can) afford.

callaway92

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

They are smart enough not to do those types of options.

Same as the distance member issue, there seems to be a bizarre sense of entitlement abroad that people should be able to play for whatever they can (or choose to decide they can) afford.

Coming from somebody who's only home at the weekends but only really get to play golf 2+ times a week in the summer months, not have a rolling monthly option is frustrating. I can't justify paying €200 annually.

SaveOurLyric

callaway92 wrote: »

Coming from somebody who's only home at the weekends but only really get to play golf 3+ times a week in the summer months, not have a rolling monthly option is frustrating. I can't justify paying €200 annually.

I find not being able to buy new Ferrari for €10,000 frustrating. Who do those guys think they are charging €300,000 ??? Its not fair. Its not as if I'm a Premier League footballer.
They are really missing out on that €10,000 I would give them if they only had the sense to sell them for that price.

FixdePitchmark

callaway92 wrote: »

Coming from somebody who's only home at the weekends but only really get to play golf 2+ times a week in the summer months, not have a rolling monthly option is frustrating. I can't justify paying €200 annually.

200 euro is amazing - particularly when it is extended to 23.

I'd say you could put away 4 euro a week to play golf if you wanted ?

Do you work in summer ?

callaway92

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I find not being able to buy new Ferrari for €10,000 frustrating. Who do those guys think they are charging €300,000 ??? Its not fair. Its not as if I'm a Premier League footballer.
They are really missing out onOk, that €10,000 I would give them if they only had the sense to sell them for that price.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I still think there are alternatives to what's being done. I don't see any justification for the price increase of 60% anyway. Nothing has improved at the course, rather many on-course cutbacks (staff cuts)

neckedit

callaway92 wrote: »

Coming from somebody who's only home at the weekends but only really get to play golf 2+ times a week in the summer months, not have a rolling monthly option is frustrating. I can't justify paying €200 annually.

But if any club brought that kind of option in, a lot would go for it and would end up being a death notice for the club as a huge portion of the members would go for the same 3 months you want to join for.
if you play times a week and pay a very small green fee of €10 over the course of 3 months, thats about €240 for your summer golf, I think €200 per year is great value.

callaway92

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

200 euro is amazing - particularly when it is extended to 23.

I'd say you could put away 4 euro a week to play golf if you wanted ?

Do you work in summer ?

Ya I suppose looking at it, €200 is a nice price, but again, I don't see why it has jumped by so much when nothing has been done to make me understand the price hike.

Ah ya I work in the summer alright (was in England last summer) so evening golf would be what I'd be playing. Probably 2 or 3 goes of 12 holes a week if I have the time. I could afford it anyway, it's just I can't warrant paying it.

I dunno, maybe I am being too cynical since the price was so good before when I was younger and going up everyday in the summer.

I suppose I should re-assess :P

callaway92

neckedit wrote: »

But if any club brought that kind of option in, a lot would go for it and would end up being a death notice for the club as a huge portion of the members would go for the same 3 months you want to join for.
if you play times a week and pay a very small green fee of €10 over the course of 3 months, thats about €240 for your summer golf, I think €200 per year is great value.

I probably should have mentioned I wouldn't be playing full rounds too often, more so 12 holes.

Ya, after reading ye're comments though, the short-term memberships could shatter clubs income. I still think there is something that could be done...Just don't know what it is yet!

Kingswood Rover

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I find not being able to buy new Ferrari for €10,000 frustrating. Who do those guys think they are charging €300,000 ??? Its not fair. Its not as if I'm a Premier League footballer.
They are really missing out on that €10,000 I would give them if they only had the sense to sell them for that price.

Yea but you guys are giving out when other people that use to buy shiny cars at you and your mates garages are now buying 2nd hand micra's and the like at other cheaper garages. if youse only had the sense to have some cheaper options available at your garages. These thick analogies are doin me mallet in,this thread is going round in circles.

GreeBo

Letree wrote: »

If golf is trying to tap into this 96,000 people who would like to play the odd round competitively but can't justify full membership. Maybe they could be charged €30 or €40 a time to enter opens or play competitively as non members at their local course (but with an actual handicap). Members pay €5 to enter these competitions in their own club. Then in terms of playing opens. Actual members of golf clubs could be asked to prove their membership of a club and get to play opens in other clubs for €15 or €20 a time.

Why don't these people pay greenfees or public courses?
Why should they get to play competitive golf?

I can't justify letting them have handicaps for almost free.

There seems to be a view of bending over backwards to facilitate these part time golfers at any cost ( or in fact minimal cost to them) , turning your back on the people who actually keep the courses open.

FixdePitchmark

callaway92 wrote: »

Ya I suppose looking at it, €200 is a nice price, but again, I don't see why it has jumped by so much when nothing has been done to make me understand the price hike.

Ah ya I work in the summer alright (was in England last summer) so evening golf would be what I'd be playing. Probably 2 or 3 goes of 12 holes a week if I have the time. I could afford it anyway, it's just I can't warrant paying it.

I dunno, maybe I am being too cynical since the price was so good before when I was younger and going up everyday in the summer.

I suppose I should re-assess :P

I think it is a harsh jump, but there was also a considerable reduction in this fee as it was considered the next step for these individuals was a full member. With the the transfer rate reducing, there is an effort to increase income from all areas.

There could be better systems that a reduction to students is linked to a longer term commitment - almost like a student loan idea.
If you make a 5 year commitment , you get a student rate then graduate rate.

But times are hard for clubs - 200 euro at 22/23 is a great deal. Particularly at this age when you will fit in lots of golf if still a student.

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

Why don't these people pay greenfees or public courses?
Why should they get to play competitive golf?

I can't justify letting them have handicaps for almost free.

There seems to be a view of bending over backwards to facilitate these part time golfers at any cost ( or in fact minimal cost to them) , turning your back on the people who actually keep the courses open.

Or society golf. Even faster and looser with the handicaps than a full club but caters for the more intermittent or occasionally competing golfer.
All the options are there already. The solution to golf funding/revenue/affordability/viability does not lie in some magic new formula.

Boskowski

I still don't get why the lads who by their own admission can only play 10 times a year insist on playing those ten times in a qualifying GUI competition. I would have thought society golf is bang on for them.

If I'm not a member of a proper football club I can't play league football. Nightowls or five a sides with the lads will have to suffice. Why is that so hard to accept in golf?

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

• We have a rapidly segmenting and shrinking golf market, where various people have different wants and needs. Yet most golf clubs are still offering the same old full / 5 day membership types that meet the needs of only some of their existing and potential new members. No wonder so many are struggling.
• To be successful, all businesses (including golf clubs) need to put the customer at the centre of their operations. We not all approaching or in the “empty nester” situation - older guys and gals with low or zero mortgages, high disposable incomes and living in the leafy suburbs of Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc. Yes, this type of person represents a valued part of the market – but it is only a small part. We all know of a lot more people, whose personal, family, economic and time situations fit into totally different market segments.
• On a positive note, the Genie is now out of bottle. There is growing awareness of the market & choices available thanks to ongoing work by Golfing Unions Ireland, England, Scotland, Sweden, etc. Word is getting out to club officials and gradually filtering down to members but it is a slow process.
• See attached from England Golf site for further information as to the choices available.
• Basically there are 2 camps, representing affordable choice of membership categories for larger numbers on the one hand or expensive limited choice membership for the few, on the other.
• The image of secure golf clubs in well off leafy suburbs with status quo of waiting lists, high fees and little choice is still there. It works for the few. But this model has failed the majority of clubs, leaving a competitive scramble for survival.
• The same intractable views are represented in club AGMs. To get your views across, people need to speak up, as these issues are best decided by members through debate and informed choice between alternatives of limited membership options (full / 5 day) or alternative membership categories targeted to meet different customer needs. I’ve spoken at our AGMs, things have changed for the better and, guess what, it’s working!
• I’m a great believer in democracy whatever its faults. There will always be loud resisters of change, but don’t be afraid to let your voice be heard. Talk or write to your committee, speak at meetings and let the majority in the golfing community decide.

I'd say we have a rapidly returning to normal levels market and that people are trying to hold on to things that are not possible in the current climate.
It's the same reason coffee shops and gourmet sandwich shops are closing.

I feel your posts are the equivalent of telling the family of self employed shoemakers who can no longer afford their 6 bed in Ranelagh, that really they just need to cut costs and sell more shoes. Actually to find out what types of previously uninvented shoes the people no longer buying shoes really want and make them. All this ignoring the hard fact that lots of people are no longer going to buy handmade shoes, no matter what you do, because the people you are trying to sell to simply don't want or have the money to spend on golf anymore.
It was a boom they has gone. You can't hang onto it.

GreeBo

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Yea but you guys are giving out when other people that use to buy shiny cars at you and your mates garages are now buying 2nd hand micra's and the like at other cheaper garages. if youse only had the sense to have some cheaper options available at your garages. These thick analogies are doin me mallet in,this thread is going round in circles.

You are going to love my last post!

GreeBo

callaway92 wrote: »

I probably should have mentioned I wouldn't be playing full rounds too often, more so 12 holes.

Ya, after reading ye're comments though, the short-term memberships could shatter clubs income. I still think there is something that could be done...Just don't know what it is yet!

What you want is to have your cake and eat it too.
That wasfine when money was pouring in, that ship has sailed though.

200 quid for membership is a pittance, what does your average student spend on beer, a month?

There is no magic something that can be done, other then people actually paying for their golf of course.

callaway92

GreeBo wrote: »

What you want is to have your cake and eat it too.
That wasfine when money was pouring in, that ship has sailed though.

200 quid for membership is a pittance, what does your average student spend on beer, a month?

There is no magic something that can be done, other then people actually paying for their golf of course.

Yup, I've realised that from the replies I've gotten, but it's still a 60% increase. I see people bitching about 10% increases over on the UPC forum here wanting to cancel their accounts. (Not the greatest comparison, I know).

I'm a non-drinker so beer money doesn't come in to it. I see where the people against what I'm saying are coming from but I still think my point is valid enough.

SaveOurLyric

callaway92 wrote: »

Yup, I've realised that from the replies I've gotten, but it's still a 60% increase. I see people bitching about 10% increases over on the UPC forum here wanting to cancel their accounts. (Not the greatest comparison, I know).

I'm a non-drinker so beer money doesn't come in to it. I see where the people against what I'm saying are coming from but I still think my point is valid enough.

When clubs were flusher with cash they could afford to be more philanthropic and of taking a long term investment in youth/good-of-the-game view of effectively subsidising the golf of juniors and students. Then the squeeze can on and there was no room to indulge in such largesse. Or worse, an imperative to gain more income from tha junior/student sector as a necessity to overall club survival. And the long term be damned. But no long term anyway if you cant survive the short term. I'm sure it wasnt a decision taken lightly.

callaway92

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

When clubs were flusher with cash they could afford to be more philanthropic and of taking a long term investment in youth/good-of-the-game view of effectively subsidising the golf of juniors and students. Then the squeeze can on and there was no room to indulge in such largesse. Or worse, an imperative to gain more income from tha junior/student sector as a necessity to overall club survival. And the long term be damned. But no long term anyway if you cant survive the short term. I'm sure it wasnt a decision taken lightly.

Good post, makes sense 100%

I think in my club's result from this increase though, the has been such a drop in student members that it has resulted in less revenue. - I have no proof on this though, it's just an educated guess from a small sample size of my friends.

GreeBo

callaway92 wrote: »

Yup, I've realised that from the replies I've gotten, but it's still a 60% increase. I see people bitching about 10% increases over on the UPC forum here wanting to cancel their accounts. (Not the greatest comparison, I know).

I'm a non-drinker so beer money doesn't come in to it. I see where the people against what I'm saying are coming from but I still think my point is valid enough.

Your original rock bottom "so good" price was heavily subsidized by everyone else though.
It's normal for crazy lie prices to be increased in times of need, 75 over three years isn't that much and 200 is still nothing.

superhooper

GreeBo wrote: »

Why don't these people pay greenfees or public courses?
Why should they get to play competitive golf?

I can't justify letting them have handicaps for almost free.

There seems to be a view of bending over backwards to facilitate these part time golfers at any cost ( or in fact minimal cost to them) , turning your back on the people who actually keep the courses open.

Should you not just view them as a market to be tapped into but in a way that is economically viable for all concerned?
A lot of these people want a handicap because they play a couple of times a year with the lads or on a corporate gig,gaa classic or whatever. This has the advantage of a) getting a few quid spent and b)keeping them interested in the game. IMO the GUI should look at market research in this area with a view to helping clubs convert them to full members etc.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd say we have a rapidly returning to normal levels market and that people are trying to hold on to things that are not possible in the current climate.
It's the same reason coffee shops and gourmet sandwich shops are closing.

I feel your posts are the equivalent of telling the family of self employed shoemakers who can no longer afford their 6 bed in Ranelagh, that really they just need to cut costs and sell more shoes. Actually to find out what types of previously uninvented shoes the people no longer buying shoes really want and make them. All this ignoring the hard fact that lots of people are no longer going to buy handmade shoes, no matter what you do, because the people you are trying to sell to simply don't want or have the money to spend on golf anymore.
It was a boom they has gone. You can't hang onto it.

We may be returning to “normal” market levels but it is far more relevant to compare where we were, say, just before the height of the boom to where we are now, based on latest available figures:
GDP $223b in 2006 V €218b in 2013, a fall of 2%
Golf Clubs 417 in 2006 V 428 in 2013, an increase of 3%
Reg. Golfers 207K in 2006 V 165K in 2013, a fall of 20%

Capacity (no. of golf clubs) has increased, earnings (GDP) is still down slightly but the number of registered golfers has fallen by a massive 20%. It’s not simply, as you put it, people trying to hold on to things they can’t afford – they are leaving golf in droves! This is resulting in a downward spiral that can only be arrested by clubs closing / merging and / or by encouraging more people to come into and stay in the game (through product differentiation and appropriate pricing).

Your analogy of the shoemaker is inappropriate because only a small part of income for golf clubs is derived from sale of single rounds of golf. Most golf club revenue comes from membership, which in reality consists of bundles of service benefits for different prices. For regular golfers like me, It makes sense to pay a full annual sub because when I work out the price per round, it comes out at around €14, whereas less frequent golfers end up paying anything from €60 - €130 a round (depending on the number of rounds they play in the year). This high cost is simply not affordable to a large chunk of the market – hence the fall in membership, which can only continue until clubs do something to address the issue.

Certainly, those who play less should pay more per round – but the imbalance is much to high at the moment!

The main message from the Golfing Unions on this front is that is indeed possible to offer more nuanced bundles of service benefits that will result in a “win win” for both golfers and clubs.
Examples are (can be labelled Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.) – won’t suit the “top” clubs but would work for the many of the less well off ones:
• Level 1 or Full Membership where you can play 7 days a week whenever you wish. This is the highest annual sub.
• Level 2 Membership where you can play Monday to Friday whenever you wish, and at weekends after 1:00 pm. To play before 1:00pm at the weekends you pay a fee. Reduced annual sub applies.
• Level 3 Membership allows you to play any day of the week. Having paid your subscription, you pay a fee every time you play. Further reduction in annual subscription applies.
• Level 4 Membership allows you to play any day of the week. Having paid your subscription, you pay a fee per round during the week and double that at weekends. Further reduction in annual subscription applies.

GreeBo

superhooper wrote: »

Should you not just view them as a market to be tapped into but in a way that is economically viable for all concerned?
A lot of these people want a handicap because they play a couple of times a year with the lads or on a corporate gig,gaa classic or whatever. This has the advantage of a) getting a few quid spent and b)keeping them interested in the game. IMO the GUI should look at market research in this area with a view to helping clubs convert them to full members etc.

It's not a viable market if you can only attract them with below cost selling though.

The same few quid can be paid in green fees or public courses, this is likely to entice people to join a club for all the benefits we already know about.

It still costs X to run a club. Members pay for this.
We are still around peak levels of clubs but nowhere near peak levels of members.

If your franchise had too many coffee shops for the current demand the solution isn't to bend over backwards cutting prices and selling all manner of things to entice prior in. The solution is to cut back on the number of stores you have and boost the ones that are viable.

It's even easier in golf you can't have the same level of competition.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

It's not a viable market if you can only attract them with below cost selling though.

The same few quid can be paid in green fees or public courses, this is likely to entice people to join a club for all the benefits we already know about.

It still costs X to run a club. Members pay for this.
We are still around peak levels of clubs but nowhere near peak levels of members.

If your franchise had too many coffee shops for the current demand the solution isn't to bend over backwards cutting prices and selling all manner of things to entice prior in. The solution is to cut back on the number of stores you have and boost the ones that are viable.

It's even easier in golf you can't have the same level of competition.

This is correct. The health of the golf "scene" in Ireland is and will continue to be dictated by the size of the "core" market, i.e those prepared to commit financially to its upkeep. Marginal and casual business will come and go and is catered for through green fees, pay and play courses and societies. Five day membership is another flexible tool that caters for a segment of the market.
In golf as in most things in life, you get what you pay for. The exception in golf is those availing of distance membership scams to play courses paid for by others.

Keano

I don't like the use of the word scam. That implies they is something dodgy going on. It's very clear what they offer and above board, you may not agree with it but it is what it is.

First Up

Keano wrote: »

I don't like the use of the word scam. That implies they is something dodgy going on. It's very clear what they offer and above board, you may not agree with it but it is what it is.

Scam has numerous definitions. One is "a stratagem for gain". The definition of stratagem is "a scheme or maneuver designed to achieve an objective".

You may not like the word scam, but according to those definitions, it applies to the matter under discussion.

superhooper

GreeBo wrote: »

It's not a viable market if you can only attract them with below cost selling though.

Fair enough but I didn't mention below cost selling. Can new options be looked at?

GreeBo wrote: »

If your franchise had too many coffee shops for the current demand the solution isn't to bend over backwards cutting prices and selling all manner of things to entice prior in. The solution is to cut back on the number of stores you have and boost the ones that are viable.

Yes that makes sense but if demand exists for a lower valued product you would have to look at that market e.g look at all the restaurants that now do "early bird" menus that 10 years ago would not have dreamt of it.
I'm not saying that distant membership in its present guise is the answer to this but rather more 5 day options or limited comp play etc.

GreeBo wrote: »

The same few quid can be paid in green fees or public courses, this is likely to entice people to join a club for all the benefits we already know about.

But with this you get very little commitment. I suppose I'm trying to use competition golf/ GUI handicap, as a way of getting people into golf. In trying to recruit my own friends to golf I always found that they just didn't see the full picture and to be fair I didn't either until I joined a club and enjoyed the comps and the bit of crack and the general social side.

The fact is I don't have an answer and maybe there is none and everything should be left as it is until more courses are culled and the market fixes itself.Perhaps golf will be an easier sell in 5/6 years time when the current baby boom is behind us and people have more free time and less crèche fees!! Maybe we just need to rise out the storm. I think we should figure out that now though with the help of market research etc.

Keano

First Up wrote: »

Scam has numerous definitions. One is "a stratagem for gain". The definition of stratagem is "a scheme or maneuver designed to achieve an objective".

You may not like the word scam, but according to those definitions, it applies to the matter under discussion.

Ah so you that's what you meant in your post. Get you now

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

Scam has numerous definitions. One is "a stratagem for gain". The definition of stratagem is "a scheme or maneuver designed to achieve an objective".

You may not like the word scam, but according to those definitions, it applies to the matter under discussion.

Very selective omission above.

scam /skæm/ slang
n
a stratagem for gain; a swindle
vb (scams, scamming, scammed)
(transitive) to swindle (someone) by means of a trick

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as below.

Definition of scam in English:
NOUN

informal
A dishonest scheme; a fraud:
an insurance scam

GreeBo

superhooper wrote: »

Fair enough but I didn't mention below cost selling. Can new options be looked at?

you didnt specifically, but cost is the #1 barrier to entry apparently, clubs have already cut to the minimums they need to survive (remember they are not trying to necessarily make a profit, it doesnt go anywhere other than the club/members) .

What are the new options other than cutting the price lower and lower to entice people to your club versus the one thats a little cheaper and also nearby?

There is no silver bullet that just needs to be tried. Courses need to close.

superhooper wrote: »

Yes that makes sense but if demand exists for a lower valued product you would have to look at that market e.g look at all the restaurants that now do "early bird" menus that 10 years ago would not have dreamt of it.
I'm not saying that distant membership in its present guise is the answer to this but rather more 5 day options or limited comp play etc.

Restaurants offer less food and have less staff at those times. Lowering the cost of being open at off peak hours doesnt impact the full paying customers, it does for a golf course.

superhooper wrote: »

But with this you get very little commitment. I suppose I'm trying to use competition golf/ GUI handicap, as a way of getting people into golf. In trying to recruit my own friends to golf I always found that they just didn't see the full picture and to be fair I didn't either until I joined a club and enjoyed the comps and the bit of crack and the general social side.

but distance membership or 2 day membership is more commitment in your eyes?
they way to do it is the way its always been done. Get people hitting golf balls with mates somewhere cheap and dirty. Then they get into it a bit. Then they play somewhere less cheap but less dirty. Then they join somewhere cheap but its a club. Then they potentally move to more expensive clubs as they see they value, or they find their price/value niche and they stay there.
Getting people to pay for 3 day membership when all they are really doing is buying a GUI handicap wont entice them to join a club, they are not getting any of the club craic becuase they arent there.

superhooper wrote: »

The fact is I don't have an answer and maybe there is none and everything should be left as it is until more courses are culled and the market fixes itself.Perhaps golf will be an easier sell in 5/6 years time when the current baby boom is behind us and people have more free time and less crèche fees!! Maybe we just need to rise out the storm. I think we should figure out that now though with the help of market research etc.

I think thats exactly what will and should happen.
Im sure the market reasearch now is no different than it was during the boom, the people who werent playing at the peak would cite money and perceived snobbery. to people outside the game its always the same reasons.

Anatom

The problem is that we did go mad a few years ago putting golf courses in places that historically didn't have the demand for it. When people calmed down from the boom times and gave up memberships they'd maybe taken out in clubs they hardly frequented, and as more and more people had to leave the country or trim back their spending, then leisure activities like golf suffered.

From a business perspective, there is still an oversupply of product in terms of the number of clubs in Ireland. The solutions, if that what we should be calling it, include a trimming back of that product (something which is happening already and which unfortunately seems set to continue for the foreseeable future) and an improvement in the standard of what's left behind. By improvement I mean both physically and in the metaphorical sense (the bits you can't necessarily monetise - the craic factor if you will). We sometimes forget on this topic that golf is a leisure activity and its hard when its your primary escape from the daily drudge to observe it as a business as well. That's been part of its success in the past, but is now part of its problem.

Like others here I don't have a specific solution and to be honest I don't think there is a magic wand for the entire industry. There may be wands available for those clubs who have the energy and guile to wave them, but that brings us back to the basic principle which guides the business and leisure sides of the debate - do you have an attractive product which people want to buy and keep buying?

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

Very selective omission above.

scam /skæm/ slang
n
a stratagem for gain; a swindle
vb (scams, scamming, scammed)
(transitive) to swindle (someone) by means of a trick

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as below.

Definition of scam in English:
NOUN

informal
A dishonest scheme; a fraud:
an insurance scam

As I said, it has numerous definitions. Pick the one you like.

GreeBo

This is not QI so lets leave the English lessons for another forum please.

Russman

Anatom wrote: »

The problem is that we did go mad a few years ago putting golf courses in places that historically didn't have the demand for it. When people calmed down from the boom times and gave up memberships they'd maybe taken out in clubs they hardly frequented, and as more and more people had to leave the country or trim back their spending, then leisure activities like golf suffered.

From a business perspective, there is still an oversupply of product in terms of the number of clubs in Ireland. The solutions, if that what we should be calling it, include a trimming back of that product (something which is happening already and which unfortunately seems set to continue for the foreseeable future) and an improvement in the standard of what's left behind. By improvement I mean both physically and in the metaphorical sense (the bits you can't necessarily monetise - the craic factor if you will). We sometimes forget on this topic that golf is a leisure activity and its hard when its your primary escape from the daily drudge to observe it as a business as well. That's been part of its success in the past, but is now part of its problem.

Like others here I don't have a specific solution and to be honest I don't think there is a magic wand for the entire industry. There may be wands available for those clubs who have the energy and guile to wave them, but that brings us back to the basic principle which guides the business and leisure sides of the debate - do you have an attractive product which people want to buy and keep buying?

That's about it in a nutshell IMO.

moycullen14

Anatom wrote: »

The problem is that we did go mad a few years ago putting golf courses in places that historically didn't have the demand for it. When people calmed down from the boom times and gave up memberships they'd maybe taken out in clubs they hardly frequented, and as more and more people had to leave the country or trim back their spending, then leisure activities like golf suffered.

From a business perspective, there is still an oversupply of product in terms of the number of clubs in Ireland. The solutions, if that what we should be calling it, include a trimming back of that product (something which is happening already and which unfortunately seems set to continue for the foreseeable future) and an improvement in the standard of what's left behind. By improvement I mean both physically and in the metaphorical sense (the bits you can't necessarily monetise - the craic factor if you will). We sometimes forget on this topic that golf is a leisure activity and its hard when its your primary escape from the daily drudge to observe it as a business as well. That's been part of its success in the past, but is now part of its problem.

Like others here I don't have a specific solution and to be honest I don't think there is a magic wand for the entire industry. There may be wands available for those clubs who have the energy and guile to wave them, but that brings us back to the basic principle which guides the business and leisure sides of the debate - do you have an attractive product which people want to buy and keep buying?

The only common prediction in all this is that clubs, it seems, will have to close. I'm not sure that this will happen and if it does, it will be messy and protracted - especially for member-owned clubs with little or no debt.

Our scenario is we have two clubs in the locality where there is only demand for one. One is in debt and the other isn't, both are member clubs. The sensible thing would be for one to close and the other to inherit the members and resources, ensuring its future. I don't think this will happen because the members of each club would sooner struggle on than admit defeat.

The fear is that as both struggle on, they destroy each other.

GreeBo

moycullen14 wrote: »

The only common prediction in all this is that clubs, it seems, will have to close. I'm not sure that this will happen and if it does, it will be messy and protracted - especially for member-owned clubs with little or no debt.

Our scenario is we have two clubs in the locality where there is only demand for one. One is in debt and the other isn't, both are member clubs. The sensible thing would be for one to close and the other to inherit the members and resources, ensuring its future. I don't think this will happen because the members of each club would sooner struggle on than admit defeat.

The fear is that as both struggle on, they destroy each other.

why would a club with no debt be struggling and in danger of closing if the other competition is a club heavily in debt?

I know where my money would be going.

Anatom

moycullen14 wrote: »

The only common prediction in all this is that clubs, it seems, will have to close. I'm not sure that this will happen and if it does, it will be messy and protracted - especially for member-owned clubs with little or no debt.

Our scenario is we have two clubs in the locality where there is only demand for one. One is in debt and the other isn't, both are member clubs. The sensible thing would be for one to close and the other to inherit the members and resources, ensuring its future. I don't think this will happen because the members of each club would sooner struggle on than admit defeat.

The fear is that as both struggle on, they destroy each other.

That's a real possibility alright.

You're right, the sensible thing would be for one to close in order to save both. However, like I said in my post, the line between business and leisure is very thin (or very thick depending on your view) and the people involved can sometimes find looking at their club objectively too difficult.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

why would a club with no debt be struggling and in danger of closing if the other competition is a club heavily in debt?

I know where my money would be going.

I guess if the playing numbers really only justified one club being there anyway, debt or no debt ?